Republic of the Philippines 2.
Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline; repair typhoon damage to
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-35645 May 22, 1985
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAPT. JAMES E. GALLOWAY, WILLIAM I. COLLINS
and ROBERT GOHIER, petitioners,
vs.
HON. V. M. RUIZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court of First Instance of Rizal
and ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO., INC., respondents.
Sycip, Salazar, Luna & Manalo & Feliciano Law for petitioners.
Albert, Vergara, Benares, Perias & Dominguez Law Office for respondents.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
This is a petition to review, set aside certain orders and restrain the respondent
judge from trying Civil Case No. 779M of the defunct Court of First Instance of Rizal.
The factual background is as follows:
At times material to this case, the United States of America had a naval base in
Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the Military Bases
Agreement between the Philippines and the United States.
Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for the
following projects
1. Repair offender system, Alava Wharf at the U.S. Naval Station Subic Bay,
Philippines.
shoreline revetment, NAVBASE Subic; and repair to Leyte Wharf approach,
NAVBASE Subic Bay, Philippines.
Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids.
Subsequent thereto, the company received from the United States two telegrams
requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding
company. The company complied with the requests. [In its complaint, the company
alleges that the United States had accepted its bids because "A request to confirm
a price proposal confirms the acceptance of a bid pursuant to defendant United
States' bidding practices." (Rollo, p. 30.) The truth of this allegation has not been
tested because the case has not reached the trial stage.]
In June, 1972, the company received a letter which was signed by Wilham I. Collins,
Director, Contracts Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest
Pacific, Department of the Navy of the United States, who is one of the petitioners
herein. The letter said that the company did not qualify to receive an award for the
projects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair
contract for the sea wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay.
The letter further said that the projects had been awarded to third parties. In the
abovementioned Civil Case No. 779-M, the company sued the United States of
America and Messrs. James E. Galloway, William I. Collins and Robert Gohier all
members of the Engineering Command of the U.S. Navy. The complaint is to order
the defendants to allow the plaintiff to perform the work on the projects and, in
the event that specific performance was no longer possible, to order the
defendants to pay damages. The company also asked for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from entering into contracts with
third parties for work on the projects.
The defendants entered their special appearance for the purpose only of
questioning the jurisdiction of this court over the subject matter of the complaint
and the persons of defendants, the subject matter of the complaint being acts and
omissions of the individual defendants as agents of defendant United States of
America, a foreign sovereign which has not given her consent to this suit or any
other suit for the causes of action asserted in the complaint." (Rollo, p. 50.)
Subsequently the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which
included an opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The
company opposed the motion. The trial court denied the motion and issued the
writ. The defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no avail. Hence the instant
petition which seeks to restrain perpetually the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M
for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.
The petition is highly impressed with merit.
The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the
courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary
consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However,
the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and
evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary
to distinguish them-between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and
private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State
immunity now extends only to acts jure imperil The restrictive application of State
immunity is now the rule in the United States, the United Kingdom and other states
in western Europe. (See Coquia and Defensor Santiago, Public International Law,
pp. 207-209 [1984].)
The respondent judge recognized the restrictive doctrine of State immunity when
he said in his Order denying the defendants' (now petitioners) motion: " A
distinction should be made between a strictly governmental function of the
sovereign state from its private, proprietary or non- governmental acts (Rollo, p.
20.) However, the respondent judge also said: "It is the Court's considered opinion
that entering into a contract for the repair of wharves or shoreline is certainly not a
governmental function altho it may partake of a public nature or character. As aptly
pointed out by plaintiff's counsel in his reply citing the ruling in the case of Lyons,
Inc., [104 Phil. 594 (1958)], and which this Court quotes with approval, viz.:
It is however contended that when a sovereign state enters
into a contract with a private person, the state can be sued
upon the theory that it has descended to the level of an
individual from which it can be implied that it has given its
consent to be sued under the contract. ...
xxx xxx xxx
We agree to the above contention, and considering that the
United States government, through its agency at Subic Bay,
entered into a contract with appellant for stevedoring and
miscellaneous labor services within the Subic Bay Area, a U.S.
Naval Reservation, it is evident that it can bring an action
before our courts for any contractual liability that that political
entity may assume under the contract. The trial court,
therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain this case ... (Rollo, pp.
20-21.)
The reliance placed on Lyons by the respondent judge is misplaced for the
following reasons:
In Harry Lyons, Inc. vs. The United States of America, supra, plaintiff brought suit in
the Court of First Instance of Manila to collect several sums of money on account of
a contract between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over defendant and over
the subject matter of the action. The court granted the motion on the grounds
that: (a) it had no jurisdiction over the defendant who did not give its consent to
the suit; and (b) plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided in
the contract. The order of dismissal was elevated to this Court for review.
In sustaining the action of the lower court, this Court said:
It appearing in the complaint that appellant has not complied
with the procedure laid down in Article XXI of the contract
regarding the prosecution of its claim against the United States
Government, or, stated differently, it has failed to first exhaust
its administrative remedies against said Government, the lower
court acted properly in dismissing this case.(At p. 598.)
It can thus be seen that the statement in respect of the waiver of State immunity
from suit was purely gratuitous and, therefore, obiter so that it has no value as an
imperative authority.
The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings
arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial
activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have
descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly
given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not
apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In this
case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the
defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of
the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to
commercial or business purposes.
That the correct test for the application of State immunity is not the conclusion of a
contract by a State but the legal nature of the act is shown in Syquia vs. Lopez, 84
Phil. 312 (1949). In that case the plaintiffs leased three apartment buildings to the
United States of America for the use of its military officials. The plaintiffs sued to
recover possession of the premises on the ground that the term of the leases had
expired. They also asked for increased rentals until the apartments shall have been
vacated.
The defendants who were armed forces officers of the United States moved to
dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction in the part of the court. The Municipal Court
of Manila granted the motion to dismiss; sustained by the Court of First Instance,
the plaintiffs went to this Court for review on certiorari. In denying the petition,
this Court said:
On the basis of the foregoing considerations we are of the
belief and we hold that the real party defendant in interest is
the Government of the United States of America; that any
judgment for back or Increased rentals or damages will have to
be paid not by defendants Moore and Tillman and their 64 co-
defendants but by the said U.S. Government. On the basis of
the ruling in the case of Land vs. Dollar already cited, and on
what we have already stated, the present action must be
considered as one against the U.S. Government. It is clear hat
the courts of the Philippines including the Municipal Court of
Manila have no jurisdiction over the present case for unlawful
detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and
interposed at the very beginning of the action. The U.S.
Government has not , given its consent to the filing of this suit
which is essentially against her, though not in name. Moreover,
this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own
Government without the latter's consent but it is of a citizen
filing an action against a foreign government without said
government's consent, which renders more obvious the lack of
jurisdiction of the courts of his country. The principles of law
behind this rule are so elementary and of such general
acceptance that we deem it unnecessary to cite authorities in
support thereof. (At p. 323.)
In Syquia,the United States concluded contracts with private individuals but the
contracts notwithstanding the States was not deemed to have given or waived its
consent to be sued for the reason that the contracts were for jure imperii and not
for jure gestionis.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the questioned orders of the respondent
judge are set aside and Civil Case No. is dismissed. Costs against the private
respondent.
Teehankee, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, * Escolin, Relova,
Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., took no part.
Separate Opinions
MAKASIAR, J., dissenting:
The petition should be dismissed and the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M in
the defunct CFI (now RTC) of Rizal be allowed to continue therein.
In the case of Lyons vs. the United States of America (104 Phil. 593), where the
contract entered into between the plaintiff (Harry Lyons, Inc.) and the defendant
(U.S. Government) involved stevedoring and labor services within the Subic Bay
area, this Court further stated that inasmuch as ". . . the United States
Government. through its agency at Subic Bay, entered into a contract with
appellant for stevedoring and miscellaneous labor services within the Subic Bay
area, a U.S. Navy Reservation, it is evident that it can bring an action before our
courts for any contractual liability that that political entity may assume under the
contract."
When the U.S. Government, through its agency at Subic Bay, confirmed the
acceptance of a bid of a private company for the repair of wharves or shoreline in
the Subic Bay area, it is deemed to have entered into a contract and thus waived
the mantle of sovereign immunity from suit and descended to the level of the
ordinary citizen. Its consent to be sued, therefore, is implied from its act of entering
into a contract (Santos vs. Santos, 92 Phil. 281, 284).
Justice and fairness dictate that a foreign government that commits a breach of its
contractual obligation in the case at bar by the unilateral cancellation of the award
for the project by the United States government, through its agency at Subic Bay
should not be allowed to take undue advantage of a party who may have legitimate
claims against it by seeking refuge behind the shield of non-suability. A contrary
view would render a Filipino citizen, as in the instant case, helpless and without
redress in his own country for violation of his rights committed by the agents of the
foreign government professing to act in its name.
Appropriate are the words of Justice Perfecto in his dissenting opinion in Syquia vs.
Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil. 312, 325:
Although, generally, foreign governments are beyond the
jurisdiction of domestic courts of justice, such rule is
inapplicable to cases in which the foreign government enters
into private contracts with the citizens of the court's
jurisdiction. A contrary view would simply run against all
principles of decency and violative of all tenets of morals.
Moral principles and principles of justice are as valid and
applicable as well with regard to private individuals as with
regard to governments either domestic or foreign. Once a
foreign government enters into a private contract with the
private citizens of another country, such foreign government
cannot shield its non-performance or contravention of the
terms of the contract under the cloak of non-jurisdiction. To
place such foreign government beyond the jurisdiction of the
domestic courts is to give approval to the execution of
unilateral contracts, graphically described in Spanish as
'contratos leoninos', because one party gets the lion's share to
the detriment of the other. To give validity to such contract is
to sanctify bad faith, deceit, fraud. We prefer to adhere to the
thesis that all parties in a private contract, including
governments and the most powerful of them, are amenable to
law, and that such contracts are enforceable through the help
of the courts of justice with jurisdiction to take cognizance of
any violation of such contracts if the same had been entered
into only by private individuals.
Constant resort by a foreign state or its agents to the doctrine of State immunity in
this jurisdiction impinges unduly upon our sovereignty and dignity as a nation. Its
application will particularly discourage Filipino or domestic contractors from
transacting business and entering into contracts with United States authorities or
facilities in the Philippines whether naval, air or ground forces-because the
difficulty, if not impossibility, of enforcing a validly executed contract and of
seeking judicial remedy in our own courts for breaches of contractual obligation
committed by agents of the United States government, always, looms large,
thereby hampering the growth of Filipino enterprises and creating a virtual
monopoly in our own country by United States contractors of contracts for services
or supplies with the various U.S. offices and agencies operating in the Philippines.
The sanctity of upholding agreements freely entered into by the parties cannot be
over emphasized. Whether the parties are nations or private individuals, it is to be
reasonably assumed and expected that the undertakings in the
contract will be complied with in good faith.
One glaring fact of modern day civilization is that a big and powerful nation, like
the United States of America, can always overwhelm small and weak nations. The
declaration in the United Nations Charter that its member states are equal and
sovereign, becomes hollow and meaningless because big nations wielding
economic and military superiority impose upon and dictate to small nations,
subverting their sovereignty and dignity as nations. Thus, more often than not,
when U.S. interest clashes with the interest of small nations, the American
governmental agencies or its citizens invoke principles of international law for their
own benefit.
In the case at bar, the efficacy of the contract between the U.S. Naval authorities at
Subic Bay on one hand, and herein private respondent on the other, was honored
more in the breach than in the compliance The opinion of the majority will
certainly open the floodgates of more violations of contractual obligations.
American authorities or any foreign government in the Philippines for that matter,
dealing with the citizens of this country, can conveniently seek protective cover
under the majority opinion. The result is disastrous to the Philippines.
This opinion of the majority manifests a neo-colonial mentality. It fosters economic
imperialism and foreign political ascendancy in our Republic.
The doctrine of government immunity from suit cannot and should not serve as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen (Amigable vs. Cuenca, L-26400,
February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 360; Ministerio vs. Court of First Instance, L-31635,
August 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 464).
Under the doctrine of implied waiver of its non-suability, the United States
government, through its naval authorities at Subic Bay, should be held amenable to
lawsuits in our country like any other juristic person.
The invocation by the petitioner United States of America is not in accord with
paragraph 3 of Article III of the original RP-US Military Bases Agreement of March
14, 1947, which states that "in the exercise of the above-mentioned rights, powers
and authority, the United States agrees that the powers granted to it will not be
used unreasonably. . ." (Emphasis supplied).
Nor is such posture of the petitioners herein in harmony with the amendment
dated May 27, 1968 to the aforesaid RP-US Military Bases Agreement, which
recognizes "the need to promote and maintain sound employment practices which
will assure equality of treatment of all employees ... and continuing favorable
employer-employee relations ..." and "(B)elieving that an agreement will be
mutually beneficial and will strengthen the democratic institutions cherished by
both Governments, ... the United States Government agrees to accord preferential
employment of Filipino citizens in the Bases, thus (1) the U.S. Forces in the
Philippines shall fill the needs for civilian employment by employing Filipino
citizens, etc." (Par. 1, Art. I of the Amendment of May 27, 1968).
Neither does the invocation by petitioners of state immunity from suit express
fidelity to paragraph 1 of Article IV of the aforesaid amendment of May 2 7, 1968
which directs that " contractors and concessionaires performing work for the U.S.
Armed Forces shall be required by their contract or concession agreements to
comply with all applicable Philippine labor laws and regulations, " even though
paragraph 2 thereof affirms that "nothing in this Agreement shall imply any waiver
by either of the two Governments of such immunity under international law."
Reliance by petitioners on the non-suability of the United States Government
before the local courts, actually clashes with No. III on respect for Philippine law of
the Memorandum of Agreement signed on January 7, 1979, also amending RP-US
Military Bases Agreement, which stresses that "it is the duty of members of the
United States Forces, the civilian component and their dependents, to respect the
laws of the Republic of the Philippines and to abstain from any activity inconsistent
with the spirit of the Military Bases Agreement and, in particular, from any political
activity in the Philippines. The United States shag take all measures within its
authority to insure that they adhere to them (Emphasis supplied).
The foregoing duty imposed by the amendment to the Agreement is further
emphasized by No. IV on the economic and social improvement of areas
surrounding the bases, which directs that "moreover, the United States Forces shall
procure goods and services in the Philippines to the maximum extent feasible"
(Emphasis supplied).
Under No. VI on labor and taxation of the said amendment of January 6, 1979 in
connection with the discussions on possible revisions or alterations of the
Agreement of May 27, 1968, "the discussions shall be conducted on the basis of the
principles of equality of treatment, the right to organize, and bargain collectively,
and respect for the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines" (Emphasis
supplied)
The majority opinion seems to mock the provision of paragraph 1 of the joint
statement of President Marcos and Vice-President Mondale of the United States
dated May 4, 1978 that "the United States re-affirms that Philippine sovereignty
extends over the bases and that Its base shall be under the command of a Philippine
Base Commander, " which is supposed to underscore the joint Communique of
President Marcos and U.S. President Ford of December 7, 1975, under which "they
affirm that sovereign equality, territorial integrity and political independence of all
States are fundamental principles which both countries scrupulously respect; and
that "they confirm that mutual respect for the dignity of each nation shall
characterize their friendship as well as the alliance between their two countries. "
The majority opinion negates the statement on the delineation of the powers,
duties and responsibilities of both the Philippine and American Base Commanders
that "in the performance of their duties, the Philippine Base Commander and the
American Base Commander shall be guided by full respect for Philippine
sovereignty on the one hand and the assurance of unhampered U.S. military
operations on the other hand and that "they shall promote cooperation
understanding and harmonious relations within the Base and with the general
public in the proximate vicinity thereof" (par. 2 & par. 3 of the Annex covered by
the exchange of notes, January 7, 1979, between Ambassador Richard W. Murphy
and Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo, Emphasis supplied).
Separate Opinions
MAKASIAR, J., dissenting:
The petition should be dismissed and the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M in
the defunct CFI (now RTC) of Rizal be allowed to continue therein.
In the case of Lyons vs. the United States of America (104 Phil. 593), where the
contract entered into between the plaintiff (Harry Lyons, Inc.) and the defendant
(U.S. Government) involved stevedoring and labor services within the Subic Bay
area, this Court further stated that inasmuch as ". . . the United States
Government. through its agency at Subic Bay, entered into a contract with
appellant for stevedoring and miscellaneous labor services within the Subic Bay
area, a U.S. Navy Reservation, it is evident that it can bring an action before our
courts for any contractual liability that that political entity may assume under the
contract."
When the U.S. Government, through its agency at Subic Bay, confirmed the
acceptance of a bid of a private company for the repair of wharves or shoreline in
the Subic Bay area, it is deemed to have entered into a contract and thus waived
the mantle of sovereign immunity from suit and descended to the level of the
ordinary citizen. Its consent to be sued, therefore, is implied from its act of entering
into a contract (Santos vs. Santos, 92 Phil. 281, 284).
Justice and fairness dictate that a foreign government that commits a breach of its
contractual obligation in the case at bar by the unilateral cancellation of the award
for the project by the United States government, through its agency at Subic Bay
should not be allowed to take undue advantage of a party who may have legitimate
claims against it by seeking refuge behind the shield of non-suability. A contrary
view would render a Filipino citizen, as in the instant case, helpless and without
redress in his own country for violation of his rights committed by the agents of the
foreign government professing to act in its name.
Appropriate are the words of Justice Perfecto in his dissenting opinion in Syquia vs.
Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil. 312, 325:
Although, generally, foreign governments are beyond the
jurisdiction of domestic courts of justice, such rule is
inapplicable to cases in which the foreign government enters
into private contracts with the citizens of the court's
jurisdiction. A contrary view would simply run against all
principles of decency and violative of all tenets of morals.
Moral principles and principles of justice are as valid and
applicable as well with regard to private individuals as with
regard to governments either domestic or foreign. Once a
foreign government enters into a private contract with the
private citizens of another country, such foreign government
cannot shield its non-performance or contravention of the
terms of the contract under the cloak of non-jurisdiction. To
place such foreign government beyond the jurisdiction of the
domestic courts is to give approval to the execution of
unilateral contracts, graphically described in Spanish as
'contratos leoninos', because one party gets the lion's share to
the detriment of the other. To give validity to such contract is
to sanctify bad faith, deceit, fraud. We prefer to adhere to the
thesis that all parties in a private contract, including
governments and the most powerful of them, are amenable to
law, and that such contracts are enforceable through the help
of the courts of justice with jurisdiction to take cognizance of
any violation of such contracts if the same had been entered
into only by private individuals.
Constant resort by a foreign state or its agents to the doctrine of State immunity in
this jurisdiction impinges unduly upon our sovereignty and dignity as a nation. Its
application will particularly discourage Filipino or domestic contractors from
transacting business and entering into contracts with United States authorities or
facilities in the Philippines whether naval, air or ground forces-because the
difficulty, if not impossibility, of enforcing a validly executed contract and of
seeking judicial remedy in our own courts for breaches of contractual obligation
committed by agents of the United States government, always, looms large,
thereby hampering the growth of Filipino enterprises and creating a virtual
monopoly in our own country by United States contractors of contracts for services
or supplies with the various U.S. offices and agencies operating in the Philippines.
The sanctity of upholding agreements freely entered into by the parties cannot be
over emphasized. Whether the parties are nations or private individuals, it is to be
reasonably assumed and expected that the undertakings in the
contract will be complied with in good faith.
One glaring fact of modern day civilization is that a big and powerful nation, like
the United States of America, can always overwhelm small and weak nations. The
declaration in the United Nations Charter that its member states are equal and
sovereign, becomes hollow and meaningless because big nations wielding
economic and military superiority impose upon and dictate to small nations,
subverting their sovereignty and dignity as nations. Thus, more often than not,
when U.S. interest clashes with the interest of small nations, the American
governmental agencies or its citizens invoke principles of international law for their
own benefit.
In the case at bar, the efficacy of the contract between the U.S. Naval authorities at
Subic Bay on one hand, and herein private respondent on the other, was honored
more in the breach than in the compliance The opinion of the majority will
certainly open the floodgates of more violations of contractual obligations.
American authorities or any foreign government in the Philippines for that matter,
dealing with the citizens of this country, can conveniently seek protective cover
under the majority opinion. The result is disastrous to the Philippines.
This opinion of the majority manifests a neo-colonial mentality. It fosters economic
imperialism and foreign political ascendancy in our Republic.
The doctrine of government immunity from suit cannot and should not serve as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen (Amigable vs. Cuenca, L-26400,
February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 360; Ministerio vs. Court of First Instance, L-31635,
August 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 464).
Under the doctrine of implied waiver of its non-suability, the United States
government, through its naval authorities at Subic Bay, should be held amenable to
lawsuits in our country like any other juristic person.
The invocation by the petitioner United States of America is not in accord with
paragraph 3 of Article III of the original RP-US Military Bases Agreement of March
14, 1947, which states that "in the exercise of the above-mentioned rights, powers
and authority, the United States agrees that the powers granted to it will not be
used unreasonably. . ." (Emphasis supplied).
Nor is such posture of the petitioners herein in harmony with the amendment
dated May 27, 1968 to the aforesaid RP-US Military Bases Agreement, which
recognizes "the need to promote and maintain sound employment practices which
will assure equality of treatment of all employees ... and continuing favorable
employer-employee relations ..." and "(B)elieving that an agreement will be
mutually beneficial and will strengthen the democratic institutions cherished by
both Governments, ... the United States Government agrees to accord preferential
employment of Filipino citizens in the Bases, thus (1) the U.S. Forces in the
Philippines shall fill the needs for civilian employment by employing Filipino
citizens, etc." (Par. 1, Art. I of the Amendment of May 27, 1968).
Neither does the invocation by petitioners of state immunity from suit express
fidelity to paragraph 1 of Article IV of the aforesaid amendment of May 2 7, 1968
which directs that " contractors and concessionaires performing work for the U.S.
Armed Forces shall be required by their contract or concession agreements to
comply with all applicable Philippine labor laws and regulations, " even though
paragraph 2 thereof affirms that "nothing in this Agreement shall imply any waiver
by either of the two Governments of such immunity under international law."
Reliance by petitioners on the non-suability of the United States Government
before the local courts, actually clashes with No. III on respect for Philippine law of
the Memorandum of Agreement signed on January 7, 1979, also amending RP-US
Military Bases Agreement, which stresses that "it is the duty of members of the
United States Forces, the civilian component and their dependents, to respect the
laws of the Republic of the Philippines and to abstain from any activity inconsistent
with the spirit of the Military Bases Agreement and, in particular, from any political
activity in the Philippines. The United States shag take all measures within its
authority to insure that they adhere to them (Emphasis supplied).
The foregoing duty imposed by the amendment to the Agreement is further
emphasized by No. IV on the economic and social improvement of areas
surrounding the bases, which directs that "moreover, the United States Forces shall
procure goods and services in the Philippines to the maximum extent feasible"
(Emphasis supplied).
Under No. VI on labor and taxation of the said amendment of January 6, 1979 in
connection with the discussions on possible revisions or alterations of the
Agreement of May 27, 1968, "the discussions shall be conducted on the basis of the
principles of equality of treatment, the right to organize, and bargain collectively,
and respect for the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines" (Emphasis
supplied)
The majority opinion seems to mock the provision of paragraph 1 of the joint
statement of President Marcos and Vice-President Mondale of the United States
dated May 4, 1978 that "the United States re-affirms that Philippine sovereignty
extends over the bases and that Its base shall be under the command of a Philippine
Base Commander, " which is supposed to underscore the joint Communique of
President Marcos and U.S. President Ford of December 7, 1975, under which "they
affirm that sovereign equality, territorial integrity and political independence of all
States are fundamental principles which both countries scrupulously respect; and
that "they confirm that mutual respect for the dignity of each nation shall
characterize their friendship as well as the alliance between their two countries. "

The majority opinion negates the statement on the delineation of the powers,
duties and responsibilities of both the Philippine and American Base Commanders
that "in the performance of their duties, the Philippine Base Commander and the
American Base Commander shall be guided by full respect for Philippine
sovereignty on the one hand and the assurance of unhampered U.S. military
operations on the other hand and that "they shall promote cooperation
understanding and harmonious relations within the Base and with the general
public in the proximate vicinity thereof" (par. 2 & par. 3 of the Annex covered by
the exchange of notes, January 7, 1979, between Ambassador Richard W. Murphy
and Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo, Emphasis supplied).